tv Pacific Commander To Early to Tell If U.S. Can Rely on China to Deal... CSPAN April 30, 2017 3:37pm-6:01pm EDT
do not know -- i will not play the guessing game. he has said your he will absolutely -- is a white house correspondents association dinner. like he was being treated fairly by the press. i don't know if that will change next year, but we will be watching. very busy saturday for you, judy. thanks for talking to us. >> great to speak with you. >> c-span were history of full-scale. in 1979 season and was created as a public service by america's television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. ♪ >> now is look at u.s. military strategy in the asia-pacific region with admiral harry harris.
good morning. senate arms services committee meets to receive information on u.s. forces in korea. admiral harris, i appreciate your appearance and your area of responsibility. i want to express the appreciation for the services of men and women you lead who defend our nation every day. america's interest are deep and enduring. that's why for the past 70 years we have worked to uphold a rules based order based on the principals of free markets, open seas and open skies and peaceful resolution of disputes. these ideas have produced unprecedented peace and prosperity prosperity. now the challenge threatens the united states as well. the most immediate threat is a situation on the korean peninsula, kim jong un's regime has thrown its full weight to deliver nuclear weapons.
a nuclear payload capable of striking a city but an eminent danger, one that poses a real and rising risk of conflict. indeed as admiral harris said yesterday, north korea already has the ability to strike u.s. territory. i look forward to hearing your assessment of missile programs, the military options they offer to our commander in chief and readiness to call them out if called upon. i welcome the news will soon be completed. it is shameful that china retaliated against south korea with economic and cyber means in response to its deployment.
this committee understands that deploying this is a decision that is necessary to defend our ally, south korea. we welcome your views on whether further enhancements or our conventional military posture are required to counter the threat from north korea. for years the united states has looked to china, north korea's patron and ally to bring the regime and achieve progress towards a korean peninsula. we have done so for the simple reason that china is the only company that may have the influence to curb destabilizing behavior. china we repeatedly. i welcome the outreach on the issue of north korea. but as these discussions
continue the united states should be clear that while we earnestly seek china's cooperation on north korea we do not seek such cooperation at other vital interests. we must not and will not bargain over our allowances or principals of the rules-based order. as the behavior towards south korea china acted less and less of the rules based order and more like a bully. it is economically coerced its neighbors, increased provocations and militarized the south china sea. with a rebalance policy two heavy on rhetoric and twooo light on action and now a withdraw from transpacific partnership they have failed to the rules based order.
that failure has caused him to question the credibility of america's security commitments in the region. this committee has grown increasingly concerned about the mill their overmatch as states like china and north korea develop advanced capabilities to project military power. america's military remains the most powerful on earth. we must adapt to the new realities we face. we must think about logistics and take steps to reshape the capabilities of our force for great power computation. specifically on the issue, this committee has heard testimony each year about the shortfall we have but we have seen little action from services to finally turn the corner and address this issue with the seriousness it
requires. i'm interested in your views and what it will take to meet them. new administration has an important opportunity to be charted and better course. earlier this week our panel of experts witnesses agreed there was a strong merit for an asian pacific stability initiative. it would enhance through targeted funding to realign in the region, improve relevantly infrastructure, fund additional exercise and with our allies and partners. admiral harris i'm interested to hear your thoughts. i think there is some symbolism in the information that the chinese are building their own aircraft carrier.
i'm sure that as an old navy aviator it has some for you. >> thank you very much. i want to thank you for being here today. we understand how difficult this time must be for you and for general brooks and all of the men and women you lead. we want you to understand our great appreciation for their efforts. it is clear to me especially after a thought ftful discussion there is none that lead to a certain strategy. i believe we should pursue and exhaust every diplomatic those options are some what limited. china provides the lifeline for north korea and china for its own national security interest that seems unwilling to exert that the needed that demike denuclearization.
it seems he is willing to risk starting his own population to achieve his dream of becoming a nuclear capable state. there are mill their options but they are risky. it may not and runs the risk of kim jong un. it is the stockpile of chemical and biological peps and missile launches spread across the country side. north korea's nuclear missile is of national security threat. they ask that you tell us how you are preparing for every contingency. while north korea poses an
immediate security threat we must not lose the long term threat i believe it is critical we empower countries in south asia to protect and provide them with economic alternatives to maintain regional stability. >> thank you. it is an honor for me to appear before this committee. there are many things to talk about. i regret that i'm not here with
my testimony battle buddy, but i think you'll all agree he is where he is needed most on the korean peninsula. mr.chairman, i request my statement be submitted for the record. as a commander i have the extraordinary privilege of leading about 375,000 airmen, marines and civilians serving our nation over half the globe. it's important because i believe economic prosperity are linked to the pacific, a region that the poised where opportunity meets the four considerable challenges of north korea, china, and isis. it is clear to me isis must be destroyed now. as we eliminate isis in the middle east and north africa
some of the surviving fighters will likely repatriot into north pacific. then there's north korea that remains a threat to the united states. north korea has vigorously purr sused nuclear testst and ballistic missile launches which it claims are intended to target the united states, south korea, ja man and earl lir this week, australia. make no mistake. kim jong un is making progress and plan to deliver them intercontinentally. all countries need to take this seriously because the missiles point in all directions. it is not yet an exessential threat but it may to hostile rhetoric.
i know there is some question about the advancements made by yang and i won't add the speculation. my job is to provide military options to the president. i must assume claims are true. general brooks and i are going everything possible to defend american homeland and allies and republic of korea and japan. they decided last july to determine area defense system, which would be operational nm coming days and able to better defend against a growing north korean threat. that's why it is back on patrol in northeast asia. we must continue today debut. that's why we want to continue
to emphasize cooperation between the united states, south korea and japan. a partnership with a purpose, if there ever was one. we continue to call on china to stop the unprecedented weapons testing. the fact that remains china is as respoblablensible as north korea is. it is clear they were diplomatically and militarily. as president trump and secretary mattis have made clear, all opgs options are on the table. we want to bring kim jong un to his senses, not to his knees. china continues a strategy to control this t south china sea. i testified that china was
militarized in this international waterway by building bases on seven chinese manmade islands. despite subsequent chinese assurances at the highest levels that they would not militarize that support long-range weapons. dmien's militarization is real. i'm also not taking my eyes off of russia. it is on success it days for the first time since 2014. russia continues to modernize and exercises conventional and nuclear forces in the pacific. despite the reasons for cig inform cant chal lens, since my
challenges, since my last wort to you we strengthened alliances and partnerships chls working on shared security threats like north korea and isis is a key component of our regional strategy. our treaty alliances, japan, the republic of korea are joint force efforts. we have also advanced important partnerships they are viewed that has helped underwrite peace. there is more work to do. we must be ready to confront all challenges from a tradition of strength and with credible come back power. speed and range. restricting ourselves with funding and certainties reduces war fighting readiness and to approve the department budget.
finally i would like to thank him for proposing and supporting those stability initiative. this will reassure iii regional partners and send a strong signal to adversaries of our persistent thank you very much. >> thank you for outstanding job and your outstanding leadership that you are exhibiting in these very difficult and challenging times. would you say it's an accurate statement that it is reminiscent?
it reminds one of a gradual cuban missile crisis? >> i am not a student of the cuban missile crisis, but what i know of it, we are faced with a threat and leader's intent -- who is intent on achieving his goal. -- of nuclear capability against the united states. >> and that leader does not always behave in a rational fash fashion, is that correct? >> that's correct. describe rational or ir rational to kim jong un. we have to deal with him.
i believe he does have some kind of calculus that ends up in decisions. he takes information and makes a decision. those decisions are often brutal. it is to keep his family in power in north korea. >> it is clear his goal is a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it to the united states of america. is there any doubt in your mind? >> there is no doubt in my mind, mr. chairman. >> and there is some question given the difficulty of getting reliable intelligence as to how close he is to reaching that goal. >> there is some doubt. whether he has the capability today or whether he will soon have the capability. he has.
we have to assume his capables are real. >> so it's not a matter of whether, it's a matter of when. >> it is truly a matter of light bulb to work. kju is going to continue to work until he gets his icbm's to work. >> what does thaad do for us and south korea? >> i think the point that kju's rhetoric and he's threatened the united states and cities by name. this week he threatened australia by name. i think his rhetoric, if you were to project it on a graph,
it's going in one direction and his capability is approaching the line of his rhetoric. where those lines cross, i believe we are then at an inflection point and we wake up to a new world. >> what does thaad do for us? >> thaad enables us and our south korean allies to defend south korea or a big portion of south korea against the threat from north korea. it's aimed at north korea, the systems, and it posed no threat to -- >> isn't it incredibly difficult to counter the 4,000 artillery pieces the north koreans have on the dmz which could attack a city of 26 million people? >> it is, sir. and thaad is not designed to counter those kinds of basic weapons. >> what is designed to do that, anything?
>> we do not have those kinds of weapons that can counter those rockets once they're launched. >> and they can launch -- they have the capability of a launch of those rockets? >> at this very moment, they have that capability, sir. >> what do you make of china's reaction to our placement of thaad, a purely defensive system? does that give you an idea of china's real intentions about north korea? >> i've said before, chairman, i believe it's preposterous that china would criticize south korea or the united states for placing a purely defensive missile system against the north korean threat when the north korean threat owes its survival, if you will, to china.
and i believe that china, rather than criticize the united states over south korea for defending ourselves, should rather put that energy toward convincing kim jong-un to stop his nuclear ambitions. >> so we should be a bit skeptical about our ability to persuade the chinese to break kim jong-un's quest for nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them? >> i have been skeptical up to the recent discussions between the president trump and president xi. so i think that we're seeing more activity proactive, positive activity from china in this case than we've seen in a long time. i remain cautiously optimistic, but certainly hopeful.
>> you wouldn't rely on it? >> it's too early to tell, sir. it's only been a month or so. >> but i mean you wouldn't rely it at this time. >> i wouldn't bet my farm on it. >> thank you, admiral, senator, reed. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you admiral harris. i had seen yesterday that you, in response to the house questions, took responsibility for the miscommunication regarding the carl vinson carrier group. first of all, i commend you for standing up and being responsible. that's what naval officers do. but i think we've got to take significant steps to avoid such confusion in the future. it was quite detrimental not only here, but as you know in south korea particularly where there was a great deal of concern and some reporters felt they had been misled. i urge you to insure that such a miscoordination or miscommunication doesn't happen in the future. >> as i said yesterday, i'm accountable and responsible for the communications that came out of the evolution.
i'm sorry it happened. and all i can say i will do better in the future. >> yes, sir. let me raise an issue that is linked to our diplomacy. we're asking china to take a much more assertive role in urging north korea to cease and desist. your view in terms of what concessions we should make, if any, to the chinese to get them to cooperate, as both the chairman and i pointed out and you pointed out, they are posing significant challenges to the rule of law in the pacific. and we can't ignore that. your comments on this issue. >> senator, i believe that great powers can walk and chew gum at
the same time. by that i mean that i think we can complement and be grateful for china's efforts in north korea, even as we criticize them, rightfully so, and hold them accountable for actions that run counter to the international rules and norms else where. in this case, the south china sea. i think we can do both and we should do both. i think china, as a great power can handle that criticism on the one hand while they're dealing with this important critical international security issue on the other. >> thank you. obviously, we're trying to approach the north korean issue with a comprehensive strategy, diplomacy, military action, military preparedness certainly. one aspect is information warfare. my sense, and i'm not the expert, you are, but kim jong-un
is paranoid about his own people and what information they're getting. do you think we're making a sufficient effort to get information into north korea through various means so that we can begin to by-pass the dear leader and go to the people and that could create pressures on him to forestall his nuclear ambition. >> i believe we're making an effort. i'm not with the totality of that effort. but i do believe that people in north korea revere kim jong-un. and i believe that the idea that somehow we could -- or that somehow they could rise up against kim jong-un, if the situation in north korea became so dire, i think that might be a
hollow hope. i believe they consider him a god king and they truly revere him as their leader. that's just based on what i've read in the press and reports of reporters who see the north korean people start to cry, all of this, all emotional when he comes out on stage. they seem to be real tears. i think that he has a hold on his people that they're not going to rise up from beneath and topple him. >> you know, again, i think your perception is much closer to the situation on the ground. but anything we can do to either raise questions, i don't think they'll prompt an uprising immediately. not only questions among the population, but questions among the dear leader, kim jong-un, that his people are being sort of influenced or there might be
elements within the country that are thinking and embracing other ideas. could be some leverage, and i think we have to pursue aggressively this operations -- >> i must agree with you there. >> just one other issue. you know, we have been -- china has refused arbitration to acknowledge the decision of the arbitration clause and the law of the sea with the philippines, et cetera. we do have a successful example of working together with respect, and that might be a model, maybe just rhetorically, we could use with the chinese and see if we could move them towards a more cooperative aspect with the philippines. >> i agree with you there. >> thank you. >> there are several good examples just in the endo asia pacific where arbitration has worked.
both parties have given a little and gotten a lot. and the overall picture in the region has been one of increased stability, rather than decreased stability. >> thank you, very much, admiral. >> admiral, i think these -- what's happened in the last few days has served as a wake up call to the american people. of course we had our hearing on tuesday with some four pretty smart people, came to the same conclusion. we have you today and we have what happened yesterday at the white house, as well as other places in the house. we actually talked about this, and it's been obvious to those of us at this table, that over a period of time north korea is going all the way arguably back to the scud times of the middle 70s progressing up and ultimately coming up to the statement that he makes that declares that north korea, this is kim jong-un, declares that it's his quote, final stages in preparations to test an intercontinental ballistic missile. i think people now realize it's an imminent threat.
i know that you deal with it in military circles and you're dealing with people who know what threat is. those of us around this table are deal ing with the general public, many of whom do not understand that. we had the hearing on tuesday, they agreed that north korea currently represents the single most imminent, they used imminent threat. victor cha testified, he said the pace of north korea's development shows that it wants to be able to not just field one missile that could reach the united states, but a whole slue of them. the panel all agreed on that.
we're talking about serious things here. you just now in response to a question or comment by the chairman said it's not a matter of if but a matter of when. we know -- i think it's our job and incumbent upon the military as well as us to let the american people know the nature of the threat that's out there. last year, i led a group to your area. we talked about some of the things that were taking place at that time. and we came back, we had that hearing that you've referred to. in the hearing you are asked the question as to what are your needs there in terms of resourcing yourself adequately to meet the threat. let's keep in mind that was a year ago. and with the threats, it's been enhanced since that time. what would those needs be today as opposed to what we thought they were a year ago?
>> sir, last year i commented that i had the forces to fight tonight, to respond tonight, to any threat from north korea or anywhere else for that matter. i still believe that today. i have the forces in place to fight tonight, if necessary. what i'm concerned about are those follow on forces and how -- the forces themselves and also how the follow on forces would get to the region, in terms of air lift and sea lift. so i'm worried about that. i'm also worried about things like small diameter bombs and other kinds of munitions. anti-air warfare weapons for our fighter aircraft. adequate numbers of aim 9 d and aim 920 missiles. i worry about the shortage of the anti-ship missiles. whether it's a long-range anti-surface missiles, more tomahawk, whatever.
but a long range anti-service missile. i would like to see a fifth ssn in guam. more than the fifth ssn in guam, our nation is facing a significant shortage in terms of submarine numbers. so as a combatant commander, i only get 50% of the submarines i think i need. but that's based on a 52 submarine force. by the end of the 2020s, the navy projects that submarine force, attack submarine force, will go down to 42. my requirements won't go down but the pool from what they'll be sourced is going to drop dramatically. i worry about that significantly as i look at the threat from north korea, potential threat from china and from russia. >> we're going to be depending on you to advise us in not generalities butads priorities.
we'll get into that. i am also encouraged that our allies are more dependable than what they have been in the past. is it your impression they see this as the threat that's out there as we do? does this open the door for maybe even more allies coming in our direction? >> i believe it does. if we define allies, you know, as partners like you're talking -- now, we only have five treaty, defense treaty allies in the world and they're all in the endo asia pacific. we have other countries that are close to us that are partners with us, singapore comes to mind, for example. you know, malaysia, indonesia, india, vietnam, these are countries that i think are -- seek the united states as a security partner of choice. >> i appreciate that very much. my time is expired but i would
like to ask one more question. you made the statement we should cease to be cautious about the language we use to describe these activities. can you define that a little bit for us? >> i'm not sure in what context -- >> ok that was a quote. i'll do that for the record and give you the context. it's something a lot of us didn't understand, thank you very much. >> yes, sir. >> admiral, thank you for your service and you are certainly in the center of the action. let me just reiterate here what you've said. you said that the korean leader is intent on accomplishing his goals as a nuclearized nation. his goal is a nuclear warhead, these are my words, but i think it's what you meant, married to an icbm that would have the capability of getting to the u.s. and you said it's not, in your opinion, not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. is that aaaaa interpretation of what you've said?
>> it is correct, sir. >> show less text harry b. harris jr. ok. and you also offered your opinion that you would not bet that china can basically deter the dprk? is that correct? >> to be clear, i felt in the past that china, though it has the capability to influence and affect north korea in behavior for a number of reasons, it had chosen not to exert the full range of its influence. and i think we're in a different place now. i think the jury is out, it's early days.
we'll have to see if china has changed its view of its willingness to influence kju. >> based on their previous activity, there's no indication that you think that that's going to occur, although you're hopeful? >> right, sir. past performance is no indicator of future productivity. up to a month or two ago i would agree with that statement, completely. after all, i made the statement. from a month ago forward, i mean, we're seeing some positive behavior from china. and i'm encouraged by that. so i think we should let this thing play out a little bit and see where it goes. part of that, though, kim jong-un and the north korean regime, you know, they can't do something precipative in the intervening period to test us.
so we have to be careful and sensitive to that as well. >> precisely. so up to this point, has china done anything that would give you an indication that they are going to be helpful to the u.s. in getting the leader to back off of his intent to nuclearize an icbm? >> sir, i don't know for a fact what china has done in the last month or so. i know that they are active in working the problems. but i don't know the specifics of what they've done. all i see are the activities that kim jong-un has done, you know, in the last month or so. >> and that is still on his march to a nuclearized icbm?
>> i think it is. though in the last month he has not tested a nuclear weapon, so he's tested five this century and he hasn't tested a sixth. he has not launched an icbm in the last month. or ever. so i don't know if that is -- if there's a cause and effect, or whether it just didn't fit his schedule. >> right. >> so, again, it's early days on this. so i think we would be best served to see if this has a positive outcome or not and let the president xi and, you know, work this issue as he and the president had agreed they would. >> sure. but if china doesn't deter him, there's only one deterrence left, and that's the u.s. kinetic action, is that what it looks like? >> i don't know want to say that
there's only that option left. i think if china's efforts fails, then we're back to where we were, status quo ante if you will, to try to throw some latin in there. at that point, then as the president has said, all options are on the table. i think he means just that. all options are on the table. so my job in that framework is to provide military options, but there are other options, i'm sure. and i would leave it to those experts to come up with those options. my options are hard power options. >> your hard power options, you need additional materiel? >> i need additional materiel in the long run but that's not to suggest the hard power options that the u.s. military can provide the president would not
be effective tonight, and they would be effective tonight if called upon to execute. >> final question, there was a report in "the washington post," i think it was david ignatius, several weeks ago. in essence, saying that the failures of the north korean launches are directly attributable to the u.s., is that anything that you want to talk about here? >> no, sir, it's not anything i want to talk about here. [laughter] >> ok. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral harris, thank you for being here, as pacom commander, did you participate in authoring the 2016 force structure assessment?
>> i participated in the run up to that. >> ok, the assessment called for 355 ship navy. in that regard i want to follow up on a line of questions and drill down on that. actually, what the fsa said is that in a perfect world unconstrained by the budget, the requirement is 653 ships fleet wide. but by accepting risk and understanding the financial restrictions that we have, the requirement is 355 ships. i want to help you get the ships you need. i want to help the navy get the ships they need. and so when i'm told 355 ships is a requirement, i believe that. now, you mentioned to senator inhofe that you don't have
enough submarines -- you also mentioned ammunition there. let's talk about ships. how many submarines do you have now and how many do you need? >> sir, i prefer to give you those in a different setting. >> ok. >> precise numbers. but i will say i only have half -- i only get half of what i need. >> ok. >> i have a stated requirement that's based on steady state things we do with our submarines today. then i have a requirement that's based on war fighting. in our war plans, they say these war plans state a requirement for x number of submarines in y number of days. those are two kinds of metrics. you've got a number of submarines that you need to fight the war, if it happens. then you've got a number of submarines i need today to do the day-to-day operations in the region.
in today's numbers, i get about half of what my formally stated requirement is. >> you get half of 52? >> no, sir i get half of my requirement. 52 is the total number of submarines that the navy -- attack submarines the navy has. my number of requirements is irrespective of the number of submarines the navy has. but the number of submarines i get are based on the number of submarines the navy has. it's not just me all these combatant commanders have these. >> if the navy gets its 355 ships and you get your portion of it, what will you be capable of doing that you can't do now? >> the first thing is my steady state requirements in order to do the things that we do today in this -- in the climate that we're in would be much better.
my fight tonight forces that i have to have ready to respond to a north korean aggression or chinese coercion or something like that, those forces will be more robust. most importantly, the follow on and search forces will be available on shorter timelines today those follow on forces are delayed by any number of reasons. and that delay is felt in terms of increased risk, longer timelines, and increased deaths of americans. and if i have the number of ships that the navy is asking for and the number of jets that air force is asking for and on and on, then both my ready to fight tonight forces will be richer, the timelines to get follow on forces will be
shortened, and the density of those follow on forces will be thicker. >> let me just say, i think at some point it's going to be helpful to this committee if you're a little more specific about those details. let me just follow up on something that chairman mccain asked about. the threats that we have from north korea now, there's the intercontinental ballistic missile, there's a better chance than not that we could shoot that down if that happened. there are these 4,000 short range missiles. and your testimony is that there is essentially no defense from the south for those short range missiles? >> those are mostly artillery -- >> artillery, ok and there's no defense -- >> right. i mean, you're trying to shoot down an artillery round.
>> ok. and then the chairman asked you -- i don't think i understood the answer. what does thaad get us? >> thaad allows us an intercept capability to shoot down at the high altitude level ballistic missiles that go from north korea to south korea. it's a terminal high altitude aerial defense system aimed at ballistic missiles from north korea against south korea. you know, that's a short dist distance across the earth, but the missiles have to -- the missiles have a high atmospheric altitude. and so that's what thaad gives you. thaad is part of a system, you know, that the south koreans have. thaad, they have patriot, and they have the like. so that's what those systems are designed for, to give an umbrella, if you will, to protect south korea.
>> it seems to me the chairman's point is the dramatic point. and that is that there's the short range artillery and we have no defense. >> right. >> should north korea decide to unleash. show less text jeanne shaheen >> i think we should develop that capability. >> thank you. >> yes, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and admiral harris, thank you very much for your service to the country and for your leadership at this challenging time. one of the things that we heard from a panel of private sector, but some former officials on north korea on tuesday was that the only impetus to encourage china to engage with north korea in the way that we would like in order to help us get them to back down on their nuclear program would be if we initiated
much more show less text harry b. harris jr. extensive sanctions on china with respect to their financial system, or if they believe that there was imminent threat of war on the korean peninsula. do you think that's an accurate analysis based on your experience with china in the region? >> senator, i think it is an accurate analysis. i think there is some room in the sanctions regime, but there's not a lot left in there. but there are some and we should apply all of those we can before we're left with only the other choice. >> again, to be clear, they were suggesting that the sanctions should be on china on their financial system. >> there are many -- there are some areas in the sanctions regime that we have not yet explored. i think we should explore those before we do the kinetics. >> thank you. and everyone has acknowledged, obviously, that north korea is working towards a nuclear
weapon. and that's one of the things that's changed in north korea. have we seen an escalation of rhetoric from kim jong-un, or are we seeing very much the same kinds of rhetoric but we're paying more attention to it today because of the nuclear threat? >> i think we're seeing increased rhetoric. this week he threatened australia. this week, he said he was going to shoot out -- sink the carl vinson with a single shot, which is, you know, ridiculous but he said it. he's increasing his rhetoric. at the same time, he's continuing his aggressive weapons develop. so i think they both go hand in hand. he had that parade last week that showed off the weapons systems and all that. all that in combination lets me know with and should let us all know that he is intent on his objective. and he's moving toward that objective at pace. >> and how much of a concern is
it that at the time when we're trying to get china to work with us on north korea, we're also very concerned about what they're doing in the south china sea. they're increasing effort to expand control of the seas in southeast asia. how much of a difficulty does that present for us as we're trying to work with them? >> as i said earlier, i don't think it poses too much of a difficulty for a nation like the united states. you know, we should be able to compliment and applaud china's efforts on the one hand and be willing to criticize them for the bad things they do on the other. and i think from china's perspective, they can receive that criticism and continue to do the thing that benefits, not just us but benefits them. a nuclear north korea or the u.s. response to a nuclear north korea, as you said, affects china almost as much as it would affect north korea. >> think it is in their best
interest to do this and listen to the international community. that you havee taken responsibility for the carl vinson and as commander you would do that. as we are thinking about the messages we send to north korea and to china, to those our allies and enemies, how concerned should we be about that kind of a mixed message. yesterday, when of the things that got a lot of attention was the briefing at the white house of all of the senators, which i'm sure north korea watched
very closely. how can we think about being consistent with the messages we are sending to the region? >> i agree with you. i think we should be consistent. fault noting was my only because i am the commander. i take responsibility. what i said at the time was we out ofull carl benson singapore. we would cancel the australian port visit and send it to northeast asia. i did not specify time. pressure onlot of that than implied it was now, now, now. i could have stepped in and corrected that.
i feel responsible for that. that is all on me. the messaging of this comes out pacific command. i regret that it happened. i will try to be better but it me.n th-- on forhank you, admiral harris being here today. some believe our nuclear forces only exist to deter attacks on the homeland in the united states but the recent activity --the korean peninsula can you talk about the values that our allies place on our nuclear umbrella and the importance of modernizing our nuclear forces so we can continue to deter adversaries and also to reassure our allies? >> i think our allies are as a
arsenalt on our nuclear as we are. i think the shows of force that we provide against our adversaries are important. we have the uss michigan, a guided missile -- it is a guided missile submarine that is in south korea right now. that sends a powerful signal of solidarity with our south korean allies and shows the north koreans that we are serious about our defense commitment to our ally on the peninsula. i think the modernization of our nuclear deterrence is absolutely critical to our nation. ohio classof the
submarine, the long-range strike bomber and an upgraded ground-based icbm's. i think the three together, the triad is a proven success story. we should not experiment with some other formula. it has worked so far and i think it will work well in the future. we must commit as a nation to modernizing that force. >> if we are going to have that message of deterrence and assurance, we need to stick to that modernization plan, correct? >> yes. year, the commander of the united states forces in korea stated that the isr is his top readiness challenge. requires increased,
consistent isr capabilities to .aintain situational awareness can you discuss how the isr enables your operations in p ay-com region and in relation to the korean peninsula specifically? >> i will try to stay on the right side of the classification. the isr, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is at the terminal we applied to our ability to watch our adversaries. we want to watch them all the time but there is not enough isr to go around to meet all the requirements. i have stated my requirements. central command is fighting the fight today in the middle east and north africa. they have their requirements for isr also. and all out of a pool the services contribute to the
pool in different ways. i do not have what i need. i do not have the ability to persistently watch my adversaries over half the globe 20 47. i need 20 47. 24/7. i do not have that. convinced that today, even though he is the european commander, he would like more isr as well. >> can you give us an idea of what percentage of those requirements you have prefilled -- fulfilled? >> probably 1/10 of my requirements are prefilled -- fulfilled. >> thank you for your testimony
here today. andrew harris harris, you referenced in your written testimony that nine out of 10 megacities in the world are in the pacific command's responsibilities. oul is what we are talking about. it is my understanding that the number of megacities is going to grow in the coming years and that growth will continue in the indo asia pacific theater as well. our military is not prepared for operations in megacities, whether it is a fight or two assist in humanitarian relief missions. how should we conduct training and to you believe additional -- and to do you believe additional training should focus on megacities?
is karachi,e cities pakistan. i believe the army and the marine corps are getting after this issue of fighting and banvily urban trains -- ur terrians. they need to continue to do that. also we are working with our friends and allies in the region to improve their capability at the same time we work to improve our capability to fight in those dense urban environments. one belt know, china's with the road strategy tries to dominate eurasia and exploit resources for future economic gains. such designs have placed to the country at odds with the united states but also nations like
japan and india. currently there budget is four times greater than those of india. india is an ambitious and growing country. china and india have increasing competing interests of state on the comment. the continent. democracy and shares values with us in the united states. how do you view india's role in the future, in the end of pacific region and what we should be doing to strengthen that relationship and if there's anything you'd like to see expanded so we can work more closely with our friends in india? >> i have made india a formal line of effort at the civic -- atd because i think it
the pacific command. we share democratic values with india. we are the world's two largest democracies. we share cultural values with indian americans who live and work and lead in our country and i think in the space we are in a very good place and getting better. india is purchasing a lot of american equipment. the largest c-17 fleet is indian. aircraft, u.s. helicopters, howitzers and on and on. there is a lot of opportunity and i think we should continue to work with them.
the navy is heavily involved in n theng with the indians o development of their aircraft carrier. that is an exciting program. india's geostrategic interests align perfectly with hours in terms of being concerned about china, in terms of the interaction or the intersection of china and india including along their land border but especially in the indian ocean. i welcome an improved relationship with india. they have invited me twice in the last years to speak at their dialogue, which i have accepted and i want to continue to improve and grow the
relationship between our two countries. >> admiral, welcome back. thanks to you and all the men and women you lead in the pacific command. i want to talk to about relative strength of missile forces. missiles are a key component of any country's security. how many land-based missile forces have the range of 500 -- 5500 kilometers? >> over 90%. >> and how many missiles do you have that follows that range. >> i have none, sir. >> why do you have none? because of that range is defined in the nuclear force nuclearhich prohibits
and cruise missiles and icbms --or ballistic missiles in that range and we it here to the inf to the-- and we adhere inf treaty. china is not a signatory to the treaty. we cannot criticize china for developing weapons that contravene the treaty because they did not sign on to it. >> the only parties to the treaty are russia and the united states? >> and there are certain states in the soviet union to which the treaty applies. we and russia are the signatories to the treated -- to the treatey. at the end of the day what you
bindss a treaty that theoretically two countries, one which violates without being held to account and the other adheres to it rigidly and all the other countries in the world are not obliged to follow the treaty and they do not. the countries of concern are iran.and my region and i thinku mentioned, this is what you were referring to -- he spoke to the house armed services committee and said the russians have deployed a land-based cruise missile that violates the treaty. do you agree with that assessment? >> i do. -- the treaty was reached after the buildup of soviet forces in the late 1970's
and our own forces along with nato in 1983. it was geared primarily toward the european theater, correct? >> it was geared toward the soviet union in a bipolar world. we are in a multipolar world where we have a lot of countries that are developing these countries including china that i worry about and i worry about their missile programs, their anti-carrier ballistic missile programs. address missiles launched from ships or airplanes but it focuses on both land-based systems. goodness in the inf treaty. anything you can do to limit nuclear weapons at large is a generally good thing but the aspects of the inf treaty that limit our ability to counter chinese and other countries and
their crew space and land-based missiles, it is problematic. the united states and russia are the only parties to the treated -- to the treaty. the united states is the only country in the world that to buildlly refuses missiles that have a range of 5500 kilometers. do you think we should reconsider or renegotiating the treaty? >> i would never advocate unilateral withdrawing from the treaty because of the nuclear limitation part of it. i do think we should look at it -- we should look at renegotiating the treaty. there are only two countries that have hung on to it and one
of them does not follow it. --t becomes a unilateral >> one final question. there are three scenarios. the united states and russia abdicate were we continue -- we abdicate from the treaty or we continue the status quo. whatever you think between one we can't accept three going forward, can we? >> thank you for being here, admiral harris. in your statement last year you describe the asia-pacific rebalance as quote a strategic hold of government effort that guides and reinforces our military effort integrating with diplomatic, political and other
initiatives. do you agree with that statement, avril -- admiral? >> i do. in the early days of the previous administration we labeled at the pivot. i think the relabeling of whatever we do is more important than what we do. >> i agree with you on this. i have a simple question and that is whether or not funding cuts into agencies that conduct diplomacy and development and perform other civilian functions would make your job easier or more difficult? >> i believe it would make it more difficult. i am reminded of what the famous french foreign minister said, the head of the french army, he said when my profession fails, yours must come to the rescue.
we are not in a good place if we are that -- i believe if the state department sales earlier because of funding, it will have to come to the rescue center. -- rescue sooner. >> that is a powerful point. i want to note for the record that the trump administration in its budget blueprint calls for a 20 9% cut in the state department and significant cuts to other agencies with international responsibility. there is an international component to the asia-pacific in keeping us safe there but it takes more in this vital region to keep us safe. i want to shift if i can to north korea. we are dealing with a real threat from a dangerous, unstable, nuclear armed state and despite tough sanctions, north korea continues to be provocative.
i am concerned this is a brewing crisis that will escalate without warning. we were at the white house yesterday and the administration said again that the time for strategic patience is over. i think it is not clear precisely what their new strategy is. by all accounts north korea is continuing its efforts to create a nuclear armed into ballistic missile system that could reach of the u.s. coastline. administration officials have talked about shooting down a north korean ballistic missile test. admiral, could you talk about the strategic considerations that we must take into account for taking such an action. what are the upsides and downsides to shooting down one of their test missiles? >> there is the capability issue. there is the geometry issue of where that missile is going and
all that. if they are launching a test missiles that we think is going to land in korea or japan, we are obligated to do what we can. >> shooting down a text missile -- a test missile in general -- experts on north korea's war wouldsay that kim jong un likely responded to u.s. military action with a massive escalation against south korea, japan, perhaps even the united states if we shot down a test missile. do you agree with that how is it and if so the administration should take this dynamic into account as it formulates its policy? >> a lot of what you are asking is being deliberated in the administration now.
i'm in a difficult position when asked to comment on ongoing process deliberations. i'm going to defer on that. -- if we do not maintain credible combat power to confront kim jong-un's testing and his development goals then we are going to be in a position to be blackmailed by kju. i think that is probably a worse place to be. i hope that we will all agree that everything has been done up to this point. it is not worth in deterring kim jong un. all of the military capabilities that we have, all of our alliance and all that has not desire toim jong un's
achieve a nuclear weapon that could reach the united states. we must stop that somehow. those options are on the table. all of this options are on the table. >> somehow is the question. i see i am out of time. we can continue this conversation later. that is precisely the question we are asking about. i'm asking a question about the upsides and downsides if we take action directly on one of these testing missiles, whether or not it escalates and this is koreaation to have south -- >> he can manufacture whatever provocation he wants to attack south korea or japan or us. provocationure of resides with him. i think we need the
administration to be clear about what they have in mind. he rightly say this is under discussion but what that means to me at this point is no one knows exactly what we plan to do here and if no one knows here in the united states, the american people do not know if -- the american people do not know, if kim jong un does not know what the response may be, it is difficult to have the deterrent take effect. >> thank you very much for being your today. i know the region is in a very precarious time and situation but we do appreciate you taking time out to be with us. in a february speech you warned the audience of the perils of linear thinking.
saying instead we need to think developially to technologies at that give us an asymmetric advantage over regional threat and i 100% agree with you. as chair of the emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee, i'm frustrated with the oftentimes slow and very expensive nature of our defense acquisitions. he said that lady gaga was able to use 300 drones during her super bowl halftime show and why is it that she has a that technological advantage and we cannot capitalize on that? how important is it that we are able to rapidly develop directed energy, weapons and swarming micro drones and more importantly if we had these technologies today, would we have more and better options to manage threats that are posed by north korea and china? isi think that innovation
one of those asymmetric advantages that america enjoys are every adversary but we in a place now where our adversaries recognize that and they are trying to close with that innovation gap. they do it in a number of ways. they send their best and brightest students to american universities and they get theyted here at home -- get educated and carry it home. they steal our industrial processes and shorten their acquisition timelines dramatic. dramatically. we are often encumbered by law, regulation and policy and i think we should look at trying to figure out how to shorten that process. the law is important.
regulation is important. policy is important. but when the three and combination allow us to be overtaken in technological development by these countries that do us harm, we should step back and look at that. i am pleased with things like undergoing, the special capabilities office that resides in osd. >> thank you. i do agree. i think it is important that we are able to move rapidly and i think you are correct about the regulations and the laws. for a purposee but we do have to go back and scrutinize some of those regulations to make sure we are able to move as rapidly as some peer competitors.
you mentioned isis in some of your comments and in your testimony, active engagement between the united states and our partner countries is very critical in maintaining stability in the region. not just with those state actors like north korea but also engaging those partners in the fight against isis. could you see to the importance of engaging those partners and how we are moving forward in the fight against isis? pacific, inter-asia the countries we work closely with in the isis fight our malaysia, the philippines, and bangladesh. australia and new zealand are involved in the effort to fight for that threat.
the major general and his team are actively engaged in providing advice and assistance to those countries. most principally right now in the philippines. i'm encouraged by the work they are doing. amis god's work and i pleased with where we are on that fight. >> the senator has to go to the floor to preside. >> my colleagues from hawaii, i aheadiate letting me jump in alaska we have a lot invested in this given that our citizens are going to be impacted sooner than anyone else in terms of the intercontinental
ballistic missile threat. i want to thank you for your service. would you agree we are in a more direct threat phase in regard to the north korean challenge to our citizens? >> i agree, senator. >> we were all at the white house describing an integrated strategy that the administration put together with regards to enhance diplomacy but -- with -- does keeping military action on the table enhance our diplomatic efforts? >> the best enhancement to diplomacy is a strong military capability. you mentioned the unprecedented weapons testing. i have a chart i want you to take a look at. not if but when north korea will have a capacity to have a range
of the continental to united states -- the continental united states. the charts show that kim jong un has conducted more tests than his father and grandfather combined. do you see that abating at all? i do not see that abating. colleagues are going to be working on a bipartisan homeland missile defense bill and hopefully we will be able to get a number of members on this committee to be cosponsors of that. >> admiral, i want to turn to the south china sea and the issue of freedom of navigation operations. you assured that the chinese -- standingng that
next to the president in the white house, -- in the rose garden, president xi said china will not pursue demilitarization of these islands. what do you make of that statement? >> i wanted to believe him. that was a year ago, what has happened? >> they have militarized that the south china sea. the reality is that china has militarized the south china and i think -- maybe it is in the other graphic but if you look at a graphic you will see a 10,000 foot runway, weapons in place, fighter aircraft hangers in barracks for troops.
it is not for rescuing fishermen they get lost out there. there. get lost out >> the trump administration is developing its own policies. i was supportive of secretary ofter's pronouncement flying, sailing and operating anywhere international law allows but the execution of that wasn't done rather -- was a done rahtether meekly. what principles should they be looking at? and when you look at this last chart, you see that it has not been militarized yet but it is
very strategic and what would happen if that became militarized by china and what should we do to stop that militarization? should we draw a red line at that important geographic point in the south china sea? at, we should be looking with the new trump administration should be looking at in terms of their faults policy in the south china sea -- llout policy in the south china sea? >> i'm a supporter of the freedom of navigation operations. we should do them not to send a message about territoriality that we should send a signal that we plan to operate wherever international law allows and the freedom of international navigation operations exist for that reason.
to exercise the freedom of navigation and the freedom that can be exercised by all countries in the world. one of the beneficiaries of our operations in the south salafi -- in the south china sea would be open waters. it is the right to all nations to operate in accordance with international law. them,s a whole range of whether you challenge what is considered an illegal baseline claim, whether you do innocent passage and do not notify a country who maintains that you must notify them before you do and innocent passage or you can you can get
within an island or feature that is not deserve one under international law. we should not limit ourselves to any of those. sho regard to scarborough -- it is anportant important part of the region. it would give china a trifecta of bases in the south china sea. spradley's and their seven .asis there and to the south they have not done that yet. i hesitate to drop redlines. i think redlines are problematic for a number of reasons but we should communicate clearly with china that we do not want them to militarized or reclaim and
been militarized the scarborough shoal. >> on behalf of senator mccain. >> thank you for your service. focus on thet of threat from north korea. in light of that, i want to assure that hawaii is adequately protected. p mrf is a national treasure that cannot be replicated anywhere else. there has been discussion about it's wholly adequately protected at this time given intelligence assessments of north korea's capability. forward, as north korea's capabilities inc. fans --
advance, what will we need to be the initiative? the agree with you that pacific missile range facility on kawai is a national treasure. record ason supporting the idea that we should require a defensive ally you radar they give for why you the space ino see the face of potential ballistic missile attacks. we have the spx, that is the radar that sits on our self-declared -- on our self prepared will platform that has platformtained -- oil that has to be sustained. today general robinson will cut
you that hawaii is adequately defended. in the future as north korea continued its weapons of element program, we need to look at all ways to improve the defense of hawaii including ground-based interceptors. we should study putting ground-based interceptors in hawaii. i do not know if we should or not but i think we should study at. that would be the complement to a defensive hawaii. >> you have any sense of the timeframe from moving to the radar capability they say we need to develop right now. >> i do not have that idea. >> congress has called for headquarters reductions in recent years. while i agree with reducing redundancy where it makes sense and eliminating waste, i'm not a fan of salami sliced percentages of cuts. i am a proponent of looking at
ash headquarters operation well as previous growth of a particular headquarters before recommending any cuts. as you mentioned in your there for it has been four of the five challenges to defense budgeting. paycom talk about staffing levels that are about to be applied in light of the challenges you face? after proposed staffing reductions, how will the ability to succeed with all the challenges you face be impacted? paycer the past 40 years, om has averaged just under 800
personnel. we have been pretty consistent over 40 years at that level and paycomm is the largest do one of themand with smallest staff. said, i think we should all seek efficiencies where we can but i'm not supportive of the idea of salami slicing. over that 40 years of staff aycom, thatels at p has increased. -- at that threat has increased. we do not have a bipolar role, the threats i talked about my testimony -- talked about in my testimony have increased. we continue to
work closely with osd, the secretary of defense and the joint staff. >> i would like for us to be very cognizant of the impact across the board cuts will have. i would like to get you one more question. you are you mentioned the support you have for the -- you say you have concerned about -- you say you have concerns about some of the changes applied to security authorities. tell us how these changes could impact the transnational crime programs? >> it could potentially, depending on how because are affected. it could affect the task force west which goes after counter narcotics programs. i am also concerned about the
international military education and training, which i think is one of the best foreign assistance programs out there. bright,where we bring of and coming midgrade officers to the united states for senior military education for a year at a time with their families and they get immersed in american culture ideas and living in an environment where we practice daily civilian patrol and military. we fundportant that these programs. i would be concerned if those programs were to be cut. on behalf of chairman mccain, senator reynolds please. >> thank you for your service to our country. i think the first time we met with in hawaii.
alarming thatwas day to say the least and eye-opening in regard to the breath and scope and size of the area which are team was responsible for. the security not just of our forces but in conjunction with our allies as well. one item that caught our attention at that time was the timeframe to respond to adversarial activity. i would like to talk about some of the newer technologies that may be very well employed in the near future. in particular, when we talk about the unique problem set that you have got. the tractor of land-based areas of that operate extreme distances, some of the most challenging environments to operate and i believe the deterrence value of long-range strike to hold targets at risk, targets are becoming harder and harder to access.
what are your thoughts on the possibility of a conventional warheads. of the proposed long-range standoff weapon? >> senator, i think we're going to have to look at that in terms of ins. currently that is the law. that is the treaty we followed. if you are talking land-based capability. in certainlimited spots. we should explore all of that. more capability against the threats we face is what is needed in the pacific command >> . with regard to hypersonic's, in open source documents there is clear evidence that both russia and china are looking at hypersonic and the ability to deliver weapons at a mock 5.0. >> i would be careful when i
talk hypersonic's in an open hearing. i am concerned about chinese and russian hypersonic weapons and i have expressed of those concerns in the right places. where perhapsarea our own technology development needs to be reviewed in terms of our ability to respond? abilityst improve our to defend against and conduct -- defend against hypersonic weapons and develop our own hypersonic weapon. hypersoniclopment of weapons, we're going to run up against treaty restrictions. >> we have been talking about some unique types of the new weapon development, but ours and theirs. we talked about readiness. we sometimes get caught up and
we assume we are being able to maintain the rated -- the readiness necessary. can you talk about our lack of readiness in some areas. every time we get together with a team of experts such as yourself we hear some horror stories about the inability to take care of some of our existing assets. the fact that we have the uss - ate sitting at fort - port. here is a nuclear powered submarine that is not operational. i understand there are two other boats in the same category. can you give us any anecdotal or additional evidence on other areas where you have been frustrated by our inability to maintain the readiness of terry for you to do your mission -- readiness necessary for you to do your mission? totheir responsibility is
maintain and equip the fourth for use by commanders and meeting the responsibilities. i do share your concerns when i look at the enterprise at in follow-on force and search force readiness. >> prepared to give us any examples? >> no sir, not at this hearing. >> once again, thank you for your service. >> on behalf of the chairman levy recognize senator donnelly -- let me recognize senator donnelly. >> thank you for your service to the country. when we were home working in our state was when this developed with the aircraft carrier. based on the words of the ,resident and secretary mattis
i spent that time in meeting after meeting with people in indiana telling us how serious we take this north korea situation and telling them we take it so serious that we have our aircraft carrier heading to north korea right now. it turned out that was wrong. i felt misled and i think my constituents were misled as well. what i don't understand is when those comments were made, hal nobody said anything that, hey, this is wrong. this is not correct. had we make sure this doesn't happen again? in a positiono be of having the people in my state think one thing and the reality is something else when we all take a pledge that we will speak truth to power. that we see something that is not correct, we will tell people
and let them know. >> i cannot say i am sorry enough. >> i'm not asking you to say you are sorry. >> i responsible for the messaging they came out of that carl vinson issued. at the end of the day we said the carl vinson was leaving singapore and heading to northeast asia. that is where it is today. it is in striking range of north korea if the president were to call on it. that messaging was not done well and that messaging is on me. >> it was. we heard the president and secretary mattis the exercise is being canceled and it is heading to north korea right now. to say someday i'm going to the cemetery. i hope it is not next week or next year but at some point i'm going to the cemetery.
i just want to make sure the information i give to the people in my state is accurate and if you can make sure if you see something that you look at and you say this really seems satellite -- seems sideways that it can be communicated right so -- people in this directory of the people in this country can know what is going on. have you seen any sanctions against north korea that a slow down kim jong un's efforts? >> none. >> have you seen in the last month or the last couple of month's, kim jong un slow down his effort of creating nuclear war vessels? missiles?war >> in the last month since president trump and president xi
got together and president xi and china seem to be more willing to exercise their influence on north korea -- north korea has not done any of the testing that senator sullivan showed on his draft. the bad testing. it is early days to draw correlation. we will have to wait and give president xi and china a chance. considering in that interim if kim jong un does not do a test. ofwhat is your understanding china's biggest influence point pushing back against north korea? i think their biggest
strength in doing that is economic. 80% of north korea's economy is china-based. i think china has a powerful norther to apply on korea. from china's perspective, they're concerned about a unified korean peninsula that is aligned with the united states and they are worried about refugees should north korea collapse precipitously. >> the time went by so fast. the rules of engagement for our ships, or any of our ships sailing solo right now near korean waters and is so do we have a plan that is they are intercepted or engaged that we have air cover for them immediately, and we have fellowships coming by immediately so they are protected and we do not have another situation? >> all of our ships that are
operating in the sea of japan, east sea area operate understanding rooms -- under standing rules of engagement. they have the obligation to defend themselves. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral, thank you. and thank you for all the men and women in your theater. since the barbary pirates, the united states has always dealt with our foreign policy from a position of strength. i am very concerned as we sit here today that we are in the middle of a paradigm shift relative to the other superpowers. since 2000, china is spending today approximately six times more on their military and these are constant dollars. isn't that directionally correct , about six times compared to 15 years ago?
>> probably, sir. i don't have the data. i have seen the curve and the curve is a dramatic in the amount of defense spending they are doing based just on what they tell us and their problem with spending -- and no problem with spending higher. >> the stockholm international i believenstitute -- china is spending more than these numbers reveal. in 2017, they are going to spend about $250 billion. that's a 10 or $6 billion --pared to our 630 billion >> when you look at purchase and parity, they've reached
that point already with regard -- in comparison with the united states. >> i lived over there. i saw their there and when you just of the currency and the o buyty that they have t their weapon system cheaper than we are. the firsted me about aircraft coming online this year. 95% of their missiles violate the inf treaty and they far out range our capabilities today, would you say today that china is on parity with united states military capability in the pacific region? >> i would not in terms of our asymmetric advantages and the quality of our equipment and our people. that said, quantity has a quality all its own and they are swiftly moving to exceed the
united states in terms of numbers of the ships and submarines and aircraft and the like. we have to continue to work and resource those asymmetric advantages that we have. certainly china is trying to close that gap in every regime. >> if you continue that trajectory, there is every reason to believe that they will actually double the amount of investment we have in the military. what i'm concerned about is this. independent of the money, we have a supply chain more. --supply chain war. tell us what we can do to help you as a combatant commander compete in the supply chain war that you have to deal with as well. your quote here today was i don't have what i need today against the current threats. -- iieve they have a 20-25
believe they have a 20 35 a strategy. 2025 strategy. >> the best thing the congress can do today is into sequestration and give us a budget. >> when you look at the china strategy in the southeast asian region, it is pretty easy. what are their intentions for that outer ring of violence -- outer ring of islands. i am talking about the mirror and islands all the way to palau wayarianna islands all the to palau. not like we're seeing in the south china sea where they are doing islands building. they are working to influence countries in that region economically to bring them in
line with that other view. >> are you concerned about the poas and the russia-china cooperation. are you concerned about those two developments? >> i am concerned about the former. pla's reorganization into joint theater commands. we went through a time of joint integration if you will, as a result of the go water nickles act in the late '80s, mid '80s. and since then, i think we have become a much more effective joint fighting force across our military. and i think china is learning from that. they watch and they study. and they're going to this theater joint combined -- command structure. and i think that will make them better. it certainly made us better. and i worry about that.
break in developing summary capability following the cold war. they have ballistic missile submarines now under fleet in the pacific. number two, the chinese are building a new class of such submarines that may have the capability to threaten us. and you also told us that your submarine requirement in patcom still has not been met. in your testimony this year, you mentioned a second ballistic missile submarine in the pacific, and the russians' plan to build and send six new attack submarines to the pacific by 2021. and you state, i'm quoting, potential adversary submarine activity has tripled from 2008 levels, tripled, requiring a corresponding increase of u.s. activity to maintain undersea superiority, end quote.
you, i think, support the navy's 2016 force structure assessment, which calls for an increase from 48 to 66 attack submarines as part of a larger 355 ship navy. in february, acting secretary of the navy, sean stackly, submitted to secretary mattis an accelerated fleet plan, which supports three additional virginia submarines. one more in fy-21, fy-22 ans fy-23 respectively. but you support this accelerated plan, and do you believe that it will give you the necessary capability to address these looming and increasing threats from both russia and china in the pacific? >> sure, sir. i'm completely supportive of the
plan. and i'm completely supportive of the effort to move to the left, construction of these virginia class submarines. they will clearly increase our nation's capability, and if assigned to pay com, pay com's capability. but three or four is inadequate in the grand scheme, based simply on my requirements, which have to be adjudicated, whether requirements of all of the other combatant commands that have significant needs and their region, as well. >> can you give us an assessment of our adversaries' anti-submarine warfare capability? >> yeah. so today, the u.s. reins supreme in the realm of anti-submarine warfare. but our adversaries, particularly china and russia, are closing that gap. because they understand that the
gap exists, and they're working to reduce our asymmetric advantage. i think that we have to continue to keep that advantage. and, you know, i don't want it to be a fair fight if we have to go into a fight with these folks. and that means that we have to continue to resource the development and the continued development of our undersea capability and submarine warfare capabilities. >> does north korea have significant anti-submarine warfare capability? >> they do not. >> and are they developing that capability? >> they're working on it. they're trying. i mean, they have submarines. they have a lot of them, smaller submarines. they're diesels. and they have an ssb, which is a ballistic missile-capable diesel submarine. and so they recognize the advantages and what the submarine gives them in terms of war fighting.
but they're a long way from developing a submarine force that's comparable to any other country that we were talking about in the region. >> on the f-35 in your testimony, you note, quote, the forward stationing and deployment of the fifth generation air frames the region continues to be a priority for your command. do you continue to believe that the f-35 is necessary in that part of the world for the defense of our allies? japan is going to be acquiring them and others. >> senator, i believe that the f-35 is critical, most in pacom, than any other region of the world, because of the threat that we face and what the f-35 brings to the fight. and the f-22 is also the -- from hawaii and alaska. and so those fifth-generation fighters will allow us to get
inside the a2ad area, the area defense capabilities of our adversaries, particularly china and the region. we're going to need fifth-generation fighters to get in there. and they provide that. >> thank you very much, admiral. thanks for your great work at pacom and throughout your career. thank you. >> thank you. on behalf of the chairman, senator graham, please. >> thank you, admiral. i want to echo that, too. thank you for your service and all those that are with you here today in your command. is china's activity in the south china sea in terms of militarizing the region getting better or worse or about the same? >> i'm not sure what better means. but they are militarizing more now than they were last year. >> i would say that it's worse. >> and from our perspective, that is worse. >> did they understand that we're serious about that's a bad thing? >> i believe they are. >> and they apparently don't care. >> to date.
>> do you think they're beginning to reshape their calculus in light of the -- our reaction to north korea? >> i hope so. but it's early days. >> ok. in terms of china leverage on north korea, you said it was substantial. >> their leverage is potentially -- >> substantial. >> substantial. >> the best way to avoid a military conflict with north korea over their missile program is for china to wake up north korea to the reality of what threat that presents to north korea and china. is that fair to say? >> that is fair to say. >> is it also fair to say that we do not have any intentions of invading north korea at all? i mean, that's not -- nobody has told you, get ready to invade north korea. >> that is not fair to say, sir. i believe the president has said that all options are on the
table. >> yeah, but i mean, we're not going to just go in and take north korea down. >> sir, i'm -- i don't want to get into what we could or couldn't do. >> ok. well, north korea thinks we're going to invade at any moment. do you think that's part of our national security strategy? is without provocation, to attack north korea? >> i think north korea has provided provocation already in terms -- >> but without provocation, it's not our policy to attack north korea. >> they have provoked us already. >> yeah, but i said if they stopped it, they don't have anything to worry about. that's all i'm saying. >> that's a decision -- >> ok. in case north korea is listening. none of us want to invade your country. >> they are. >> ok, well, good. so here's the point. all of this military force going that way is to deter them from being able to hit us. and protect our allies, right? >> right. >> we are trying to determine them -- deter them from hurting us. we're not sending a bunch of people over there to invade their country without
provocation. is that fair to say? >> right. >> good. i hope they understand that and i hope china understands that. thank you >> yes, sir. >> on behalf of the chairman, senator mikulski, please. >> thank you. last year, a general testified at this hearing that north korea has one of the largest chemical and biological weapon stockpiles and research programs in the world. do you agree with that ? >> i do. >> and do you believe that the facts that we know about the death of the half brother to kim jong-un was likely assassinated with vx nerve agent? >> yeah. i do, senator. that's just based on open source reporting. >> right. so i'm -- we haven't confirmed that it was used. >> i beg your pardon? >> we have not independently confirmed that it was used. >> i have not seen reporting to reflect that. >> so do we -- do you know enough about the delivery capabilities of chemical and biological weapons at this point to adequately be prepared to
defend our allies and our american soldiers and families in the surrounding vicinities? >> i don't know enough about all of their capabilities, and including those that we saw or probably saw in malaysia. so i think that's part of the readiness calculus that we have to go through when we consider the threat from north korea. >> do you have the appropriate cvrn, which is an acronym for the record that is our defense? equipment necessary for chemical and biological attacks? >> i believe that general brooks does have that for the forces that are in korea now. >> ok. what about in japan? >> i can't speak to that. >> ok. i would love a followup on that. >> yes, ma'am. >> i think, you know, we do stuff in fort lauderwood in missouri.
it's our biological defense center. and i'm concerned if they are using nerve agents to kill family members, they certainly are not going to hesitate to use nerve agents to kill american soldiers and our south korean allies and innocent citizens. so i would like a followup on that. >> you bet. >> do you think we should deploy thad to japan? >> i believe that's a decision japan has to make. i believe japan should have some kind of system like that. or agisher it is that assure or something else, they have to make that decision. >> as you know, i had the opportunity to take a exhausting tour of all of our anti -ballistic missile systems last year, and you kindly hosted us when we were at pay com. but i had a chance to be in south korea, understand that thad was going in, and also obviously in guam to observe the thad. i just want to make sure we know
what the needs are in terms of thad, in light of what north korea is up to. >> so we work with japan, and described the capability that thad would provide. that would give them also agis assure and potentially other systems. so that will be a japanese decision. on ould be -- >> we are indicating to them we would be cooperative in trying to deploy thad to japan. >> right. >> ok. >> we -- to be clear on that, i have not reached an agreement with japan on deploying thad. >> right. >> but that's a different issue than your initial question, which was should japan buy thad. >> right. >> so you know, if they buy it, then it's theirs, and relieves me of the burden of having to deploy it, and the joint force. >> right. >> so i think that whole decision, whether they buy thad or agis assure or assess to support them or whatever, that's a decision yet to be made.
>> it seems to me that the discussion that we're trying to have about pressure on china to do the right thing, especially in light of what i learned from you in terms of china's activities and militarization in south china sea, that the more talk we have publicly about thad, more places, i think the more it behooves what i think is our policy right now as it relates to north korea. very quickly, i don't think anybody has touched on what i have been really confused by, and worried by in light of how important the philippines is to the united states' military. could you assess the current situation of the u.s.-philippines relations? because i know what strategic importance those islands have to your capability of defending the united states of america. >> so, ma'am, i believe that we're in a reasonably good place in the mill to mill space with our forces of the philippines. afp, if you will. we have a range of activities we
continue to do with the afp, including billikitan, an exercise that kicks off in may. the cooperation agreement, the five or -- five philippine bases that we have agreed to -- with the government in the philippines to improve for -- in some cases for us to use. that is proceeding apace. most importantly, our special operations command folks are active in southern -- in the southern philippines to combat terrorism. in conjunction with and in support of the armed forces of the philippines. so our guys are doing the advising and assisting, but not the direct action. that's the responsibility of their own forces of the philippines and i think that's working. >> so it is not having a
negative relationship in the mill to mill. >> yes. >> that's reassuring. he kind of goes in the category of kim jong-un in terms of what the hell, right? >> we are in a good place in the mill to mill space with the philippines. >> right. ok. thank you. >> senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. parenthetically, your exchange with senator ernst, silicon valley and those innovative industries located in other parts of the country. we had testimony here a couple of months ago that silicon valley essentially won't deal with a defense department, because of the -- i was -- i would call it byzantine, but that would be an insult to the byzantine empire. the cumbersome and slow process in our procurement. that is an urgent national priority, in my opinion. and i just wanted to echo that conversation. the second point i think that's important, all the discussion we have had in the last few days about north korea in the last few weeks and months have
focused on the icbm and threat to the homeland via a missile. the other problem that i think deserves attention is that north korea is a serial proliferator of nuclear technology. and i think as serious a threat as an icbm is a nuclear weapon, a nuclear warhead in the hold of a tramp steamer sponsored by isis headed into miami or the port of baltimore. so that to me is an imminent threat that is almost as dangerous as the icbm threat. so that's got to be part of this calculation. here's my question. historically, the regimes in north korea have gone through these cycles of provocation and rising tension, and then there's been some negotiation and concessions. if this is part of that pattern, what does kim jong-un want? >> yeah.
so senator, i don't think it's any longer a part of the pattern of his grandfather and his father. so as you correctly stated, in the past, they've gone to this provocation cycle. i've talked about it a lot in hawaii. where there's a provocation, there's a negotiation and there's a concession. it is peaceful for a while, and then the cycle starts again. i think kim jong-un has elevated that to a cycle of provocation, provocation, provocation. and what he is seeking is his own independent nuclear deterrent in order to threaten ure united states into inshor the continuance of his regime. >> to follow up on senator graham's questions, we go back
to history, the situation we're in now has often been analogized recently to the cuban missile crisis. part of the settlement in that case was we had a military force and threat of military force. we had the blockade but ultimately there was an agreement not to invade cuba. and that was part of the agreement that ended up with the missiles coming out. is this a moment, if regime preservation is his goal, is there a moment where we could enter into those kinds of negotiations and talk about a treaty? >> i don't want to, you know, to limit the president's options as he decides which course of action to take. i will simply say that in the cuban missile crisis, the key was credible combat power that allowed diplomacy to act. >> i completely agree. >> i believe that my part of this problem set is to provide that credible combat power in the face of north korean provocation. >> i totally accept that.
i understand that the vinson has to be there and all the other capabilities that we have and that is part of this process, but i'm talking about how do we eventually get out of this, and that involves some discussion of what is it that is necessary to end this. china's a little puzzing to me because we've always talked about economic pressure, and china, i agree, has total pressure ability with regard to north korea. there's no law that says that the missiles that he's developing and the nuclear weapons only can go south and east. he's as close to beijing as he is to tokyo. and if i were china, i would not want a nuclear armed guy right on my border who could threaten me. and it seems to me that china really has to start to think about the threat this way. if he achieves this, suddenly, he can threaten anybody within a
thousand miles. >> yeah, i agree with you there. >> finally, we talked about the vulnerability of seoul. i think -- as a talk to people in maine, they're surprised to learn that seoul is about 30 miles from the north korean border, from the dmz and the enormous threat from just artillery. and we talked about that we don't have any defense for that now. do the technologies that have been developed in conjunction with the israelis, david sling and iron dome, have any relevance in this case? >> i don't know. i'm not smart enough on that. i'll have to get back to you on that. >> i appreciate that. because that is a technology that's been effective in defending israel from short range rockets and perhaps it would be something that would change the military calculus. >> yeah, and i'll get back to you, sir. >> thank you, admiral. >> well, thank you, admiral. and i think that what we're talking about that the north
koreans have is rockets which are -- would not lend itself to iron dome defenses. these are very difficult and challenging times, and it's very fortuitous that you are here before this committee, particularly after the briefing that we had yesterday at the white house. you've been able to give us some of the details that only a military commander can provide us with, and will help us to make judgments. i don't think any of us are predicting conflict, and i think it would be wrong for us to do that. but i also believe that we should make every preparation and although it would be -- military activity would be a
last resort, it's something that we can't completely rule out. but i emphasize it would be absolutely, i know, that it would be this president's last resort. but you're the tip of the spear, admiral. and so the fact that you will have men and women ready if called upon and the testimony you've given today is reassuring to this member, and i believe to the other members of the committee. and i know how much you look forward to coming back and testifying before this committee. i know it's one of the highlights of your time as commander in the pacific, but this testimony today was extremely important, and i thank you for taking the time and speaking in a very informative and articulate fashion. want --?eid, to do chairman, i concur and i
just once again, admiral, thank you and make sure you thank the men and women under your command. >> thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017]
it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. check at c-span.org/classroom. it is full of free teaching resources for classroom members. improved layout gives teachers easy access to ready to go resources for the classroom, including short current event videos that highlight important events in washington, d.c., constitution clips they bring the constitution to life, social studies lesson plans, as well as on this day in history resources. our search function allows classroom teachers to search in filter by date, person, keyword, topic and great level. our bell ringers clips are teacher favorites. withideos are paired vocabulary and discussion questions that make the federal government and politics more accessible to your students. >> i love the bell ringers.
i will use him as actual bell ringers. i use them in conjunction with an activity we are doing that day. is more of a wrapup. >> the new website is something that is fabulous. my students use it regularly. it is so easy in fact they are right now working on clipping videos and making questions that they can design and turning to their own bell ringers. >> probably my favorite aspect is the deliberation page. if they perfectly set up, ready to go classroom deliberation discussion on a variety of topics that are current and relevant today. >> if you are a middle school or high school teacher, join thousands of your fellow teachers across the nation as a member of c-span classroom. it is free and easy to register at c-span.org/classroom. if you register now, requested free classroom sized american presidents timeline poster, a graphic display of the biographies of all 45 president. find out more at c-span.org /classroom.
here on c-span, "newsmakers" is next with republican congress been rob bishop of utah. after that barack obama speaks about civic engagement at his first open event since leaving office. at 8:00, our conversation with brad schneider on human day. -- q and a. susan: our guest this week is eight-term utah congressman representative rob bishop, chairman of the national resources committee in the house of representatives, the person at the center of the debate over the use of our federal lands. thanks so much for being our guest this week. rep. bishop: thank you for the invitation to be here. susan: let me introduce the reporters who will be asking two questions. esther wielder with the politico covering the energy and of our mental issues and bridget , baumann with "roll call," who is covering congress for the publication.